Final Evaluator of the Project: Conservation, Restoration and Wise Use of Rich Fens in the Slovak Republic

• Ministry of the Environment
• State Nature Conservancy (SNC)
• Slovak Technical University, Dpt. of Land and Water Resource Management
• UNDP/GEF Regional Center for Europe and CIS (Bratislava)
• The GEF Secretariat, who is not involved in project implementation, but to whom the FinalEvaluation Report to be prepared under this Terms of Reference will be submitted.

1. Restoration plans for pilot sites prepared
2. Improvement of hydrological regime and restoration management of sites
3. Monitoring system established including monitoring of crucial stakeholder groups’ reactions
4. GIS component of National Peatland Database enhanced
5. The capacities of State Nature Conservancy (SNC) offices and Regional Departments (RD) of MoA are strengthened
6. Awareness about the maintenance of Slovakia’s peatland biodiversity increased
7. Important peatland sites included into Natura 2000 network and National Agri-environmental program

• Development priorities at the national level;
• Stakeholders – assess if the specific needs were met;
• Country ownership / drivenness – participation and commitments of government, local authorities, public services, utilities, residents;
• UNDP mission to promote sustainable human development (SHD) by assisting the country to build its capacities in the focal area of environmental protection and management;

• Effectiveness - extent to which the project has achieved its objectives and the desired outcomes, and the overall contribution of the project to national strategic objectives;
• Efficiency - assess efficiency against overall impact of the project for better projection of achievements and benefits resulting from project resources, including an assessment of the different implementation modalities and the cost effectiveness of the utilisation of GEF resources and actual co-financing for the achievement of project results;
• Timeliness of results,

• Specific: The system captures the essence of the desired result by clearly and directly relating to achieving an objective and only that objective.

• Measurable: The monitoring system and indicators are unambiguously specified so that all parties agree on what it covers and there are practical ways to measure it.

• Achievable and Attributable: The system identifies what changes are anticipated as a result of the intervention and whether the result(s) are realistic. Attribution requires that changes in the targeted developmental issue can be linked to the intervention.

• Relevant and Realistic: The system establishes levels of performance that are likely to be achieved in a practical manner, and that reflect the expectations of stakeholders.

• Time-bound, Timely, Trackable and Targeted: The system allows progress to be tracked in a cost-effective manner at desired frequency for a set period, with clear identification of particular stakeholders group to be impacted by the project.

• Impact - assessment of the results with reference to the development objectives of the project and the achievement of global environmental goals, positive or negative, intended or unintended changes brought about by the project intervention, (number of households benefiting, number of areas with the new technology in place, level of sensitization and awareness about the technology; any change at the policy level that contributes to sustainability of the tested model, impact in private/ public and/ or at individual levels);
• Global environmental benefits - reductions in green house gas emissions.
• Sustainability - assessment of the prospects for benefits/activities continuing after the end of the project, static sustainability which refers to the continuous flow of the same benefits to the same target groups; dynamic sustainability use and/or adaptation of the projects’ results by original target groups and/or other target groups;
• Contribution to capacity development - extent to which the project has empowered target groups and have made possible for the government and local institutions (municipalities) to use the positive experiences; ownership of projects’ results;
• Replication – analysis of replication potential of the project positive results in country and in the region, outlining of possible funding sources; replication to date without direct intervention of the project;
• Synergies with other similar projects, funded by the government or other donors.

• Have population of globally significant species characteristic to rich fens been maintained within the pilot sites? (With a special attention to indicator species mentioned in the Tracking Tool and the Logframe Matrix, see Annex 1.)
• Have representative vegetation types of rich fens habitat been integrated in the protected area network of Slovakia?
• Have there been changes in local stakeholder behavior (i.e. threats, land use management practices, ….) that have contributed to improved conservation?  If not, why not?
• Has the project established a management basis for long term sustainability and development of project outcomes?
• Has the project elaborated innovative incentives to motivate land use change to biodiversity friendly land use practices?
• Is there distinct improvement in biodiversity information turnover and use in decision making among the local stakeholders?
• Has awareness on biodiversity conservation and subsequent public participation in biodiversity monitoring and management increased as a result of the project?
• Is there adequate territorial planning in place, or in progress, ensuring long-term conservation of biodiversity and cultural values?
• Assess the underlying factors beyond the project’s immediate control that influence outcomes and results, especially the recent changes in the governmental policy on the implementation of the agri-environmental scheme.  Consider the appropriateness and effectiveness of the project’s management strategies for these factors.

Products expected form the evaluation

• The key product expected from this final evaluation is a comprehensive analytical report in English that should, at least, follow minimum GEF requirements as indicated in Annex 2.
• The Report of the Final Evaluation will be stand-alone document that substantiates its recommendations and conclusions. The report will have to provide to the GEF Secretariat complete and convincing evidence to support its findings/ratings.
• The Report will include a table of planned vs. actual project financial disbursements, and planned co-financing vs. actual co-financing in this project, according the table attached in Annex 3 of this TOR
• The Report will be supplemented by Rate Tables, attached in Annex 4 of this TOR.
• The length of the final evaluation report shall not exceed 30 pages in total (not including annexes).

Evaluation approach

• An outline of an evaluation approach is provided below; however it should be made clear that the evaluator is responsible for revising the approach as necessary. Any changes should be in-line with international criteria and professional norms and standards. They must be also cleared by UNDP before being applied by the evaluation team.
• The evaluation must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful.  It must be easily understood by project partners and applicable to the remaining period of project duration.
• The evaluation should provide as much gender disaggregated data as possible.
• The evaluation will take place mainly in the field. The evaluator is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach ensuring close engagement with the government counterparts, the National Project Manager, Steering Committee, project team, and key stakeholders.
• The evaluator is expected to consult all relevant sources of information, such as the project document, project reports – incl. Annual Reports, project budget revision, progress reports, Mid-Term Evaluation Report, project files, national strategic and legal documents, and any other material that s/he may consider useful for evidence based assessment. The list of documentation to be reviewed is included in Annex 5 of this Terms of Reference
• The evaluator is expected to use interviews as a means of collecting data on the relevance, performance and success of the project. S/He is also expected to visit the project sites.

The methodology to be used by the evaluation team should be presented in the report in detail. It shall include information on:

• Documentation reviewed;
• Interviews;
• Field visits;
• Questionnaires;
• Participatory techniques and other approaches for the gathering and analysis of data.

• Recent knowledge of the GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy;
• Recent knowledge of UNDP’s results-based evaluation policies and procedures
• Recent experience in evaluation of international donor driven projects;
• Experience with multilateral or bilateral supported conservation projects
• Conceptual thinking and analytical skills;

• University degree in environment related issues;
• Recognized expertise in the management and sustainable use of wetlands in temperate ecosystems;
• Familiarity with protected area policies and management structures in EU, especially in Slovakia;
• Work experience in relevant areas for at least 8 years;
• Fluency in Slovak will be considered an asset;
• Excellent English communication skills;
• Computer literacy;